When it comes to American Jews and the Middle East, the president has more room for manoeuvre than you might think

ON FEBRUARY 26th, George Bush addressed the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think tank, on the subject of democratising the Middle East. The audience could hardly have been more enthusiastic until he touched on the subject of Israel. Then the mood suddenly changed. Many of America's leading Jewish intellectuals sat in stony silence as the conservative-in-chief made the case for a “viable” Palestinian state and for ending settlements in the occupied territories.

Does this stony silence presage trouble for Mr Bush in the future? Does he risk alienating Jewish voters if he pushes forward with his road map for peace in the Middle East? And will fear of alienating those voters force him to adjust his policies? The encouraging answer to all three questions is that he has far more freedom to be bold than many Europeans imagine.

Mr Bush can hardly worry much about alienating the Jews since the overwhelming majority of them vote Democratic. Exit polls in 2000 suggest that 79% of Jewish voters voted for Al Gore compared with just 19% for George Bush—a remarkable figure considering the average income of the Jewish community. The White House would clearly relish attracting more Jewish voters, particularly in the vital swing state of Florida. But, overall, Jews account for only one in 50 Americans, and most of them live in two Democratic fortresses, California and New York.

It is also a mistake to assume that America's Jews are any more solidly behind a neo-conservative hard line in the Middle East than Jews in Israel are. One poll conducted last July (on behalf of the American Jewish Committee) found that 63% of American Jews favour the establishment of a Palestinian state. Another poll conducted last November (on behalf of the Arab American Institute) put the portion at 87%; it also showed that most American Jews want the American government to be seriously engaged in the peace process.

Mr Bush's new initiative in the Middle East is already garnering strong support from influential Jews. On May 19th 100 prominent figures with close ties to the Democratic Party sent a letter to the Democratic presidential candidates urging them not to criticise the road map.

That still leaves those more conservative Jews of the sort gathered at the AEI dinner. Hardliners tend to be to the fore in the main lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). There are also those much-analysed neo-conservatives gathered around Mr Bush. Unlike AIPAC, they loathed the Oslo peace accords, and they provide much of the Republican Party's intellectual input, particularly on foreign policy. Surely these conservatives will redirect Mr Bush from his current course?

The trouble with this argument is that these conservatives are boxed in. Most neo-conservatives have strong institutional and personal ties to the Bush administration. AIPAC has been well treated by the Bush administration so far. It would be hard to turn against the conqueror of Baghdad without looking churlish.

And where else can they go? The Democrats are substantially more pro-Palestinian than the Republicans. In May last year 44 House Democrats (including five senior ones) voted either “no” or “present” on a broad pro-Israeli motion compared with just six House Republicans.

Mr Bush's very closeness to so many Jewish conservatives may help him sell his peace plan to his toughest potential critics. Mr Bush's senior adviser on the Middle East is Elliott Abrams, a neo-conservative firebrand who has previously praised Ariel Sharon for his “strength” and “firmness” towards the Palestinians. Of course, Mr Abrams's appointment may show that Mr Bush is not really serious about his road map. But it may also strengthen his hand when it comes to negotiating with reluctant right-wingers in Israel.

Richard Nixon was able to go to China because his anti-communist credentials were so strong. Mr Bush's pro-Israeli credentials arguably give him greater freedom in the Middle East than any Republican president has previously enjoyed.